Single Format debate

Denis Dyak reckons that a single platform for gaming is the only sensible way forward and 'inevitable'.

Do you agree with him or think we'd be missing out if the competition between the current systems wasn't there? Could there be enough competition in games alone to drive hardware forward? What about hardware innovation?

Denis Dyak reckons that a single platform for gaming is the only sensible way forward and 'inevitable'.

Do you agree with him or think we'd be missing out if the competition between the current systems wasn't there? Could there be enough competition in games alone to drive hardware forward? What about hardware innovation?

This thread is going to feature intelligent debate, SG, exactly the kind of thing you don't offer. I suggest you stay out of it.

Single format MUST happen. We are paying over the odds for our games because of the ridiculous system whereby some games don't work on some players. Movies have not been hindered by all being made to work on one format, music hasn't suffered, books haven't suffered. Games won't, either. They will do so much better, as currently an exclusive title is limited in potential sales to the amount of consoles that have been sold. Doubling your potential market is never a bad thing.

Multiplatform games currently require 2 or 3 teams to make them. This would end, too. Publishing rights? There won't be any. Advertising costs? Also down, since you no longer have to chase multiple audiences.

Oh, and before anyone says the PC is the single-format, you are wrong. I have three different PCs in my house alone, none of which can play every PC game I have without messing about or emulating something. I'm not suggesting the PC isn't wonderful, but it is not as straightforward as a console and thus will never get the same kind of focus.

Denis Dyak reckons that a single platform for gaming is the only sensible way forward and 'inevitable'.

Do you agree with him or think we'd be missing out if the competition between the current systems wasn't there? Could there be enough competition in games alone to drive hardware forward? What about hardware innovation?

In a day when Activision are talking about having to raise the price of a game is it such a bad thing to have 1 platform? Would Call of Duty need to £55 if there was only 1 version of the game?

1 platform would reduce development costs which could be used for new IPs or even allow a bit more time or resources onto a game to improve the quality. Or it could simply go straight into the pockets of the fat cats at the top which is more likely.

In terms of competition I'd say it would still exist. Developers/publishers would want to be able to say "our game pushes the platform to the limits" etc etc.

Hardware innovation would be an interesting one. With nobody to outsmart by releasing a new console ahead of your rivals then it would probably come down to what we saw at E3 i.e. MS coming out with Natal and Sony coming out with their waving wand thingy to copy what Nintendo has already come up with but all of these bits and pieces would be on the one platform. However this would lead to issues as only certain games would work for certain hardware add-ons which would technically lead to different platforms within the single platform which would just be silly.

It would see the end of "my console is better than your console" arguments which is no bad thing. And the Sony and MS execs wouldn't be able to come out with as much bullsh*t about how superior their console is as they currently do.

I find it hard to imagine a time when there would only be 1 platform but I'm for sort of for it and sort of against it.

In a day when Activision are talking about having to raise the price of a game is it such a bad thing to have 1 platform? Would Call of Duty need to £55 if there was only 1 version of the game?

1 platform would reduce development costs which could be used for new IPs or even allow a bit more time or resources onto a game to improve the quality. Or it could simply go straight into the pockets of the fat cats at the top which is more likely.

In terms of competition I'd say it would still exist. Developers/publishers would want to be able to say "our game pushes the platform to the limits" etc etc.

Hardware innovation would be an interesting one. With nobody to outsmart by releasing a new console ahead of your rivals then it would probably come down to what we saw at E3 i.e. MS coming out with Natal and Sony coming out with their waving wand thingy to copy what Nintendo has already come up with but all of these bits and pieces would be on the one platform. However this would lead to issues as only certain games would work for certain hardware add-ons which would technically lead to different platforms within the single platform which would just be silly.

It would see the end of "my console is better than your console" arguments which is no bad thing. And the Sony and MS execs wouldn't be able to come out with as much bullsh*t about how superior their console is as they currently do.

I find it hard to imagine a time when there would only be 1 platform but I'm for sort of for it and sort of against it.

"Different platforms within the platform" already exist on each of the consoles as it is, Dave. People without a balance board can't play games that rely on it, people without the PS Eye or MS Vision Cam are similarly left out of those games. Dance mats, guitars, etc. It's no different, and is really just an extension of the kind of thing that already happens with other media technology anyway. Some DVD players have more menu options than others, some stereos allow Bass boost, etc.

Denis Dyak reckons that a single platform for gaming is the only sensible way forward and 'inevitable'.

Do you agree with him or think we'd be missing out if the competition between the current systems wasn't there? Could there be enough competition in games alone to drive hardware forward? What about hardware innovation?

Peripherals have always been there since the year dot and I don't think that's an issue as such. If you want a game that uses the peripheral you buy the peripheral. It's not really the same as buying a dedicated games system for one or two exclusive titles.

Certainly there are many pros to the single format, including being able to play everything. However, the way it's most likely to work is to use a single underlying format (like DVD or Blu-ray) with a set of rules on what you can and can't add and then get individual companies to build their hardware based on that.

This way you would still have a Playstation Games system, an Xbx games system and a Wii games system (or whatever) but the major difference is that you could play a game on all three of them, they'd just be different shells with the possibility of a range of other options (media playback, extra USB ports, streaming etc).

So I'm pro single format, but against having a single box for that format.

I'd also like to point out the potential dangers of single format and single box in that the console companies won't need to push down prices due to lack of competition and there won't be so much innovation in the design of the box itself.

With competing boxes that retain the same basic game format you still get price competition and innovation for enhancements.

Peripherals have always been there since the year dot and I don't think that's an issue as such. If you want a game that uses the peripheral you buy the peripheral. It's not really the same as buying a dedicated games system for one or two exclusive titles.

Certainly there are many pros to the single format, including being able to play everything. However, the way it's most likely to work is to use a single underlying format (like DVD or Blu-ray) with a set of rules on what you can and can't add and then get individual companies to build their hardware based on that.

This way you would still have a Playstation Games system, an Xbx games system and a Wii games system (or whatever) but the major difference is that you could play a game on all three of them, they'd just be different shells with the possibility of a range of other options (media playback, extra USB ports, streaming etc).

So I'm pro single format, but against having a single box for that format.

I'd also like to point out the potential dangers of single format and single box in that the console companies won't need to push down prices due to lack of competition and there won't be so much innovation in the design of the box itself.

With competing boxes that retain the same basic game format you still get price competition and innovation for enhancements.

"Different platforms within the platform" already exist on each of the consoles as it is, Dave. People without a balance board can't play games that rely on it, people without the PS Eye or MS Vision Cam are similarly left out of those games. Dance mats, guitars, etc. It's no different, and is really just an extension of the kind of thing that already happens with other media technology anyway. Some DVD players have more menu options than others, some stereos allow Bass boost, etc.

True but I believe this would see a larger divide and a divide on similar technology which would be controlled by the previous consoles manufacturers.

Is there not a cross over of control methods between Rock Band and Guitar Hero? I don't own either so can't comment for certain but I'm sure I've read that there is some crossover with guitars but not on all instruments.

What I was talking about however is similar control systems but developers have to choose which one to publish their game on. Not all games are going to make use of full body motion in Natal, they will have some motion that could be picked up by Sony and Nintendo's hardward add on but since these add ons were developed independently to get one up on the others I cannot see them allowing a game to work on each of them. This also ignores the extra complexity for a developer to code the same function in 3 different ways, not much of an improvement over 3 separate consoles. And I can't see any of the 3 allowing a 3rd party company to develop a best-of device which would bridge the gap between the 3 add-ons.

You mention "Multiplatform games currently require 2 or 3 teams to make them". Perfectly true but what happens to team 2 and 3? Just a general question rather than debating a point you made but one of Mr Dyak's comments was that there are too many games for the consumer to cope with. A single platform free us dev team 2 and 3 from the game so potentially they are free to make a new game each which doesn't resolve the number of games. Or will a single platform lead to a lot of redundancies?

True but I believe this would see a larger divide and a divide on similar technology which would be controlled by the previous consoles manufacturers.

Is there not a cross over of control methods between Rock Band and Guitar Hero? I don't own either so can't comment for certain but I'm sure I've read that there is some crossover with guitars but not on all instruments.

What I was talking about however is similar control systems but developers have to choose which one to publish their game on. Not all games are going to make use of full body motion in Natal, they will have some motion that could be picked up by Sony and Nintendo's hardward add on but since these add ons were developed independently to get one up on the others I cannot see them allowing a game to work on each of them. This also ignores the extra complexity for a developer to code the same function in 3 different ways, not much of an improvement over 3 separate consoles. And I can't see any of the 3 allowing a 3rd party company to develop a best-of device which would bridge the gap between the 3 add-ons.

You mention "Multiplatform games currently require 2 or 3 teams to make them". Perfectly true but what happens to team 2 and 3? Just a general question rather than debating a point you made but one of Mr Dyak's comments was that there are too many games for the consumer to cope with. A single platform free us dev team 2 and 3 from the game so potentially they are free to make a new game each which doesn't resolve the number of games. Or will a single platform lead to a lot of redundancies?

Well, I think that Mr. Dyack has that one wrong. There are not too many games, the same way there are not too many movies, albums, and books. The reason some games don't sell at the moment is because of the inflated prices, which is something that should be less of a problem in this Star Trek future we are discussing anyway!

Peripherals have always been there since the year dot and I don't think that's an issue as such. If you want a game that uses the peripheral you buy the peripheral. It's not really the same as buying a dedicated games system for one or two exclusive titles.

Certainly there are many pros to the single format, including being able to play everything. However, the way it's most likely to work is to use a single underlying format (like DVD or Blu-ray) with a set of rules on what you can and can't add and then get individual companies to build their hardware based on that.

This way you would still have a Playstation Games system, an Xbx games system and a Wii games system (or whatever) but the major difference is that you could play a game on all three of them, they'd just be different shells with the possibility of a range of other options (media playback, extra USB ports, streaming etc).

So I'm pro single format, but against having a single box for that format.

I'd also like to point out the potential dangers of single format and single box in that the console companies won't need to push down prices due to lack of competition and there won't be so much innovation in the design of the box itself.

With competing boxes that retain the same basic game format you still get price competition and innovation for enhancements.

"there won't be so much innovation in the design of the box itself"... do people really care all that much about how their console looks? Appearance has never come into question when I have been deciding what console to buy.